Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"11. We do not find any merit in this contention. We are of the view that a voter in a particular panchayat cannot be rendered remediless if he is aggrieved by the election of the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, a thirteen-Judge Bench of this Court held that Article 368 of the Constitution does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. The basic structure of the Constitution could not be altered by any constitutional amendment and it was held in unambiguous terms that one of the basic features is the existence of constitutional system in judicial review. This view was followed by a Constitution Bench in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, a seven-Judge Bench of this Court has held that jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and tribunals may perform a supplementary role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It has been held as under:

"78. ... We, therefore, hold that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in [the Supreme] Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore, the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded."

12. In I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N., a Bench of nine Judges has again held that power of judicial review is the part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The power to amend cannot be equated with the power to frame the Constitution.

13. It is thus clear that power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is an essential feature of the Constitution which can neither be tinkered with nor eroded. Even the Constitution cannot be amended to erode the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition filed by Respondents 6 to 9 under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. However, it is left to the discretion of the court exercising the power under Articles 226/227 to entertain the writ petition.

16.8. By relying on the above he submits that the power of judicial review is an inviolable basic structure of the constitution and this Court even in election proceedings can exercise such inviolable power of judicial review to render justice in a particular matter. 16.9. As regards Fauzia Imtiyaz Shaik's case, he refers to paragraph No.68.3, 68.4 and 68.5 (which are reproduced herein above) to contend that the embargo, if any, is only during the actual election process and the said embargo does not apply either prior to the election or after the election is held.